On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:28 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 20:45:07 +0800 > Hillf Danton <dhillf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Spinners on other CPUs, if any, could take the lru lock and do their jobs while >> isolated pages are deactivated on the current CPU if the lock is released >> actively. And no risk of race raised as pages are already queued on locally >> private list. >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Hillf Danton <dhillf@xxxxxxxxx> > > Doesn't this increase the number of lock/unlock ? > Hmm, isn't it better to integrate clear_active_flags to isolate_pages() ? > Then we don't need list scan. > Look at it soon. Thanks, Hillf -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>